2026:CGHC:7135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 495 of 2024

1 - Smt. Sandhyarani Sahu W/o Aditya Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Durga Mandir, K.L.C. Zone-3, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.)

2 - Shreyansh Sahu S/o Aditya Sahu, Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sandhyarani Sahu (Applicant No.1) R/o Near Durga Mandir, K.L.C. Zone-3, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.)

... Applicants versus Aditya Kumar Sahu S/o Alekh Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Police Station Baunsuni Town, District Bouddh (Odisha) Pin 762015 ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate along with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

09.02.2026

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer:

“It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 11- 03-2024 (Annexure A-1) and may kindly be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount granted to the applicants as prayed in the application filed before the learned family Court, in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants, being the wife and minor child of the respondent–husband, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, pleading that the marriage of applicant No. 1 with the respondent was solemnized on 20.06.2014 in Odisha in accordance with prevailing customs and that out of the lawful wedlock applicant No. 2 was born, it was further alleged that after some time of marriage the respondent and his family members subjected applicant No. 1 to mental and physical cruelty and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry, and upon non-fulfilment of the demand she and her minor son were assaulted and driven out of the matrimonial home on 06.01.2021 and again on 16.01.2021, compelling them to reside at her parental house, and that the respondent, despite having sufficient means through his business of wholesale dealing in milk, curd and paneer, running shops of fancy articles and medicines, and income from joint agricultural property, neglected to maintain them, due to which maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month was claimed. The respondent contested the claim by filing reply denying the allegations, contending that applicant No. 1 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, that she is educated and capable of earning and maintaining herself and the child, and that his own income is limited and he has no agricultural property, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, by impugned order dated 11.03.2024, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the applicants. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is unsustainable in law inasmuch as only a meagre amount of maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- has been granted, which is wholly insufficient considering the steep rise in prices of essential commodities and the needs of the wife and minor child, and therefore the said amount deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is further contended that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate that the husband did not file any documentary evidence in support of his alleged limited income, nor did he prove his assertion regarding the independent income of applicant No. 1, and the quantum of maintenance has been determined merely on conjectures without proper evaluation of oral and surrounding evidence, resulting in grave injustice to the applicants, and hence the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is liable to be suitably enhanced in the present revision.

4